Editorial: Separating guns from domestic abusers

Wednesday

May 17, 2017 at 7:00 PMMay 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM

Rhode Island House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association may soon be a thing of the past, given his recent comments supporting a bill, H-5510, to take guns away from those who have committed domestic abuse or are under restraining orders.

“I am not looking at this bill as a gun issue, but rather it is a domestic violence concern,” Mr. Mattiello said.

He called domestic abuse “a serious problem which we will continue to address.”

We are glad the speaker has come around on this issue. The National Rifle Association is a powerful interest group whose ratings are important in filling campaign coffers. Mr. Mattiello is right to put the potential victims of domestic abuse first.

As we have long argued, separating a gun from someone who has committed domestic abuse, or presents a serious risk to a family member, is a rational step to help save lives. That also may relieve some of the terror potential victims feel. Some are afraid to even come forward because they fear they will be shot later on.

Such sensible measures are opposed by gun-rights advocates, who insist they are no friends to those who commit domestic abuse. They worry this bill is part of attempts to steadily erode the constitutional protections guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action complained that the legislation “includes restraining orders for cases where there has been no finding of guilt” and could subject someone falsely accused with a lifetime ban on a constitutional right without due process.

But, given the dangers that guns pose, public safety demands some accommodations to reality. Protecting potential victims of domestic abuse is reasonable and just.

Advocates of such limits, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group Everytown for Gun Safety, make strong arguments:

-Most states have laws prohibiting those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from having guns. Rhode Island does not.

-Fifty-four people were killed in domestic violence homicides in Rhode Island from 2006 to 2015, and guns were used more than any other weapon.

-The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the woman involved will be killed.

-State courts have been lax about requiring those under final domestic abuse protective orders to relinquish their guns. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, of 1,609 final protective orders granted by state courts from 2012 to 2014, only 5 percent included a requirement that the accused surrender any firearms.

-Federal law, through background checks, already prevents anyone subject to a restraining order from buying a gun.

We hope the legislature follows the lead of the speaker and passes this long overdue measure, both in the House and in the Senate. Guns in the hands of domestic abusers pose a serious threat to peace and safety. Rhode Island should finally address this concern.